Activate Base Plan

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a meaningful effect (availability to new subscribers) and the read-only mode restriction, but it does not mention reversibility, prerequisites, or side effects on existing plans. Adequate but with clear gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the operational caveat placed after. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The required parameters are fully documented and an output schema exists, so constructing a valid call is straightforward. However, for a lifecycle mutation with no annotations, the lack of details about idempotency, reversibility, and prerequisites leaves meaningful context gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema covers all three parameters with clear descriptions, and the description adds no parameter-level detail. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific action ('Activate') and target resource ('subscription base plan'), and specifies the outcome ('making it available to new subscribers'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling lifecycle actions like deactivate_base_plan and delete_base_plan.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context: activation is used when a base plan should become available to new subscribers. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of the top score.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.